8 known cases. View patent page →
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision that Adidas had not demonstrated that the challenged claims of US8266749 were unpatentable as obvious.
Puma challenged Nike's complaint and moved to dismiss claims of infringement for US8266749 and US9078488, arguing that the patents did not cover patentable subject matter; the court denied the motion.
Lululemon filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging claims 1-21 of US8266749, which the PTAB instituted, with ongoing arguments regarding claim construction and anticipation.
A jury initially found for Nike and awarded damages, but the district court granted a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law for Lululemon, ruling US8266749 invalid based on obviousness and overturning the jury's verdict.
Nike accused New Balance of infringing US8266749 (among other patents) with almost two dozen New Balance sneaker models in a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts.
Nike accused Skechers of infringing US8266749 (among other patents) with more than two dozen Skechers models; Skechers alleges the claims of the '749 patent are invalid, with parallel litigation ongoing.
Nike sued Puma alleging infringement of multiple footwear patents. The '420 patent was asserted against Puma's 'Jamming' footwear. The parties settled confidentially and stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, with dismissal reported January 13, 2020.
Nike sued New Balance asserting nine patents, including the '484 patent, accusing Fresh Foam and FuelCell lines. The case was stayed pending IPR, and on August 20, 2025 the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing claims and defenses relating to the '484 patent.